The health of a democracy depends on the choice of
representatives and leaders, which in turn is directly linked to
the way political parties function and elections are conducted.

While we have outstanding men and women in public life, flawed
electoral process is increasingly alienating public-spirited
citizens from the political and electoral arena. The persons best
equipped to represent the people find it impossible to be elected
by adhering to law and propriety. If elected, decent citizens
cannot survive for long in elective public office without
resorting to, or conniving in, dishonest methods. Even if they
survive in office, their ability to promote public good is
severely restricted.

Indian people have often been changing governments and elected
representatives. However, this change of players has little real
impact on the nature of governance. Even if all those elected
lose, and all losers are elected, the outcome is not
substantially altered. This sad situation calls for a change in
the rules of the game, and citizens cannot be content with mere
change of players.

Excessive, illegal and illegitimate expenditure in elections is
the root cause of corruption. Often the expenditure is 10 to 15
times the legal ceiling prescribed. Among elected
representatives, almost everyone violates expenditure ceiling
laws. Most election expenditure is illegitimate and is incurred
in buying votes, hiring hoodlums or bribing officials. Abnormal
election expenditure has to be recouped in multiples to sustain
the system. The high risk involved in election expenditure (winner-tale-all
process), the long gestation period required for most politicians
who aspire for legislative office, the higher cost of future
elections, the need to involve the vast bureaucracy in the web of
corruption (with 90% shared by the large number of employees) -
all these mean that for every rupee of expenditure, fifty to
hundred rupees has to be recovered to sustain the system. One
rupee election expenditure normally entails at least a five-fold
return to the politician. To share five rupees with the political
class, the rent-seeking bureaucracy has to recover about Rs.50.
In order to extort Rs.50 from the public, there should be delay,
inefficiency, harassment, humiliation and indignity worth Rs.500
heaped on the innocent citizens! Cleansing elections is the most
important route through which corruption and maladministration
can be curbed.

Many scholars wonder how despite massive irregularities the
electoral verdicts still seem to largely reflect public opinion,
and how parties in power often lose elections. The answers are
simple. Happily for us, though parties in power are prone to
abusing authority for electoral gains, there has never been any
serious state-sponsored rigging in most of India. The
irregularities are largely limited to the polling process alone,
and most of the pre-polling activities including printing and
distribution of ballot papers, and post-polling activities
including transport and storage of ballot boxes and counting of
ballots are free from any political interference or organized
manipulation. That is why parties in power have no decisive
advantage in manipulating the polls, and electoral verdicts
broadly reflect shifts in public opinion. However, the massive
irregularities in polling process make sure that candidates who
deploy abnormal money and muscle power have a distinct advantage.
Sensing this, most major parties have come to nominate 'winnable'
candidates without reference to their ability and integrity.
Thus, the use of money power and muscle power are sanctioned by
almost all the parties, and often they tend to neutralize each
other. The net result is that candidates who do not indulge in
any irregularity have very little chance of being elected.
Election expenditure - mostly for illegitimate vote buying,
hiring of hoodlums and bribing officials - is often ten or twenty
times the ceiling permitted by law. Criminals have a decisive or
dominant influence on the outcome in many parts of India, and
have often become party candidates and won on a large scale.

The elections are largely plebiscitary and the people vote for a
platform or a leader or a promise or, as is seen more often, vote
to reject the incumbent government or party in power. The
individual candidate's ability is rarely an issue in our
electoral politics. At the same time party workers and local
oligarchies do not regard election as an opportunity to vindicate
their policies or ideologies. In most cases, election of their
chosen candidate is merely an opportunity to have control of
state power and resources, to extend patronage selectively to
people of their choice, to get pliant local bureaucrats appointed
in plum postings, to humiliate and harass the inconvenient
employees who would not do their bidding, and increasingly to
interfere in crime investigation and prosecution by doctoring
evidence, influencing investigation and letting criminals loyal
to them go scot free and implicating people opposed to them in
criminal cases. In the midst of this, governance is an
irrelevant, and often inconvenient ritual without any meaning to
those in power and without any positive impact on the people.

At the macro level when we examine a whole state or the country,
the electoral verdict does broadly reflect public opinion. More
often than not this verdict is a reflection of the people's anger
and frustration and is manifested in the rejection vote, or their
support to a leader, promise or platform. However, at the local
level, caste or sub-caste, crime, money and muscle power have
become the determinants of political power. All parties are
compelled to put up candidates who can muster these resources in
abundance in order to have a realistic chance of success. While
political waves are perceived around the time of election or
afterwards, at the time of nomination of candidates all parties
are uncertain about their success and would naturally try to
maximize their chances of success at the polls by choosing those
candidates who can somehow manipulate or coerce the voters. As a
net result, irrespective of which party wins, the nature of
political leadership and quality remain largely the same, and the
people end up being losers. This is then followed by another
rejection vote in the next election and the vicious cycle keeps
repeating. Where the candidate cannot muster money or muscle
power, he stands little chance of getting elected irrespective of
his party's electoral fortunes. Increasingly in several pockets
of the country, people are spared even the bother of having to go
to the polling station. Organized booth-capturing and rigging are
ensuring victory without people's involvement.

If we examine the new entrants into politics over the past three
or four decades in the country, very few with intellect,
integrity, commitment to public service and passion for
improvement of the situation could enter the political arena and
survive. Almost every new entrant has chosen politics exactly for
the wrong reasons. A careful analysis shows that heredity and
family connections are the commonest cause for entry into
politics. This is closely followed by those who have large
inherited or acquired wealth and have decided that investment in
politics is good business. In recent years, many local muscle
men, whose services were earlier sought for extortion or vote-gathering,
are now directly entering the fray and gaining political
legitimacy. A few persons have entered politics out of personal
loyalty to, and close contacts with those in high public office.
People with very high visibility on account of great success in
mass entertainment like sports or films have also been
increasingly drawn into the vortex of politics. Occasionally,
accidents of fate are pitch forking certain individuals into
elective public office. If we exclude these methods of heredity,
money power, muscle power, personal contacts, high visibility,
and accidents of fate, there will not be even a handful of
persons in this vast country of ours, who have entered politics
with deep understanding of public affairs and passion for public
good and survived for any length of time over the past four
decades. There is no activity more vital and nobler than
governance. In the true sense, politics is about promotion of
happiness and public good. But if the best men and women that
society can boast of are either prevented or repelled or rendered
incapable of surviving in the political arena, then that
governance is bound to be in shambles. Over the past forty seven
years of our republic, the unsuitable constitutional and legal
mechanisms that we evolved landed the Indian republic in an
extraordinary crisis of governability.

Democracy is the only system, which demands constant selection,
nurturing and development of capable leadership. If the best men
and women society can offer are repelled by the political process
and politics acquires a pejorative connotation, the result is
collapse of ethics in public life, and with it public confidence
in governance. With the most competent and qualified persons
eschewing politics, paralysis of governance is the inevitable
consequence. With all decisions geared towards somehow winning
elections and retaining power or to amass individual wealth at
the cost of the public, the people are swindled. This legal
plunder ensures that public goods and services are of appalling
quality and wholly insufficient to meet the requirements of a
civilized society or growing economy. Public exchequer will soon
be depleted and fiscal collapse will be imminent. Sadly, all
these ugly features of a dysfunctional democracy are evident in
contemporary India.

In addition to the electoral irregularities, use of unaccounted
money power and criminalisation of politics, the first-past-the-post
(FPTP) system in a plural society added to the decline in
political culture. On the one hand the largest party is likely to
obtain disproportionate presence in legislature, with consequent
mariginalisation of large segments of public opinion. In a plural
society such a majoritarianism has evidently led to ghettoization
of numerically important groups like minorities and dalits.

On the other hand, in the FPTP system, there is desperation to
somehow win the election in a constituency by all means fair or
foul, as each seat becomes critical in the legislative numbers
game to form government or acquire influence in the Westminster
model. The ugly practices adopted by a party at the constituency
level becomes somehow acceptable in this quest for electoral
success. Once a candidate obtains party nomination, he and his
caste or group often make it an issue of personal prestige to be
elected in the winner-take-all electoral and power game. As
election in each constituency runs on similar lines, the parties
and candidates are not inhibited by the fear that their
illegitimate efforts to win a few constituencies might undermine
the larger objective of enhancing the voting share in a whole
state or the nation.

Another feature of the FPTP system is that reform of the polity
becomes more and more difficult. Genuinely reformist groups with
significant but limited resources and influence have no realistic
chance of success in the FPTP system and they tend to wither away.
In a system in which winning the seat by attracting the largest
number of votes is all-important, honest individuals or reformist
parties fighting against the electoral malpractices and
corruption have very little chance of success. This tends to
perpetuate the status quo, and people will have to live with the
unhappy choices among parties, which are more like Tweedledom and
Tweedledee. Political process becomes increasingly incestuous,
and even as power alternates between parties, the nature of the
power game and the quality of governance remain unaltered. The
political system has thus become fossilized over the years and is
self-perpetuating. Fresh breeze of electoral reforms, is vital to
rejuvenate the political process and to inject institutional self-correcting
mechanisms to revitalize our democracy.

In India, traditionally parties have been seen as pocket boroughs
of those at the helm. Often there are entry barriers to members.
Communist parties have always had a somewhat strict membership
admission procedure, which is generally uniform in its
application. The mainstream parties which are mass-based and have
no rigid membership norms, however, have been erecting barriers
of entry to all persons who are potential threats to the current
leadership. While ordinary, faceless members are admitted as
connon-fodder with ease, the potentially influential members are
not always welcomed with open arms. Similarly, even the faintest
criticism of party bosses on any issue is taken as an act of
indiscipline, often leading to suspension or expulsion. Again,
when leadership changes in the party, the same member who was
earlier punished for rebellion is welcomed back with alacrity.
There are countless instances of such disgraceful autocracy in
all major political parties in India.

The political parties, which exhibit such authoritarian
tendencies in protecting the privileges of those in power and
nipping in the bud any potential threat to individual dominance
have not shown the slightest sense of shame or remorse in
assiduously cultivating and recruiting known criminals, corrupt
persons and charlatans and rogues. Such shady elements are
courted and welcomed, while decent and dignified citizens are
shunned and often rejected. No major mainstream party has any
published membership rolls. Spurious membership and disputes
arising out of it are only too well known to all of us in respect
of major political parties. As a net result, parties have often
become a collection of greedy, corrupt and unscrupulous persons,
who are willing to use any method, however ugly, immoral, violent
or brutal, to perpetuate their hold on state power. By virtue of
entry barriers and expulsion powers in the hands of party bosses,
no real rejuvenation of parties with injection of fresh blood is
possible. All idealistic, talented youngsters are often repelled
by the parties, and undesirable elements find a haven in them.

As a perceptive political observer commented some years ago, in
Indian political parties, 'the man who wears the crown is the
king'. Leadership is often acquired through undemocratic means
and retained by the power of patronage, nomination and expulsion,
rather than the support of members. This paved way for
oligarchies and unaccountable and unelected coteries dominating
and manipulating the political process. Party leadership, however
illegitimate the ascent to it may be, gives total control of the
party apparatus and resources. Through total monopoly over
candidates' choice, the leadership's access to, and control over,
levers of state power is complete and unchallenged. Given the
fact that most parties are dominated by only one leader, and not
even a small group, 'monarchy' is the correct description of
party leadership. Once in office, the power of leadership is
absolute, and control of resources is awesome. Any potential
dissidence or principled opposition is instantly snuffed out.
Suspension, expulsion, instant removal from office, denial of
party tickets, all these and more weapons are fully available to
leadership if there is any whiff of opposition. If the party is
in power, state machinery is used for party ends, and more often
to perpetuate absolute control over the party and state, with
cynical disregard to propriety and public good. All positions in
the regional and local units are nominated by the party leader.
Every party functionary owes his or her position to the grace and
good will of the 'High Command'. Myths and images are assiduously
propagated to perpetuate personal power. No other party
functionary or leader is allowed to share the limelight. The
moment a local or rival national leader is gaining in popularity,
he is immediately cut to size, removed from office, and if
necessary expelled from the party to deny him a political base,
and force him into political wilderness.

Membership rolls are not available, and when prepared are often
spurious. Elections are not held, and if held are rigged.
Musclemen often take over party meeting and conferences at
various levels, and fisticuffs and violence are quite common. All
parties, without exception, nominate candidates for public office
through the dictates of the leadership or high command. All funds
are collected clandestinely and spent at will to further augment
personal power. State level 'leaders' are nominated by the 'high
command'. When a party is elected to office in any State, the
legislature party leader, who will be Chief Minister, is
nominated by the central leadership, and formally anointed in a
farcical 'election ' . Often sealed covers are sent indicating
the name of the person chosen as Chief Minister by the party
leadership. There are instances in which persons who did not
command the support of even a handful of legislators became Chief
Ministers. Even candidates for public office in local government
elections and cooperatives are decided by the party's central
leadership. When the party obtains a majority in a local
election, again the zilla parishad chairman or other
functionaries are decided by the party bosses far removed from
the scene. In short, political party functioning has become
totally autocratic, oligarchic, unaccountable and undemocratic.
The whole political process and all democratic institutions are
systematically subverted. Party leaders have become medieval
potentates, with the sole intent of survival in power, and
bequeathing their office to their family members or chosen
successors.

It does not require any great analysis or insight to understand
that undemocratic political parties cannot nurture, sustain or
strengthen a democratic society. The most critical need is to
reform parties and make them open, democratic and accountable.
Basic democratic principles of member control, elected
representatives from lower tier electing leadership at higher
levels, open membership rolls, fair and free elections, no power
to central party over regional and local units, easy and
effective challenge to incumbents, no recourse to expulsion or
removal of potential rivals, and no nominated office holders at
any level, should be integral to the functioning of any political
party. The question then is, can the political parties be left to
manage their own affairs democratically? Past experience shows
that it is futile to expect parties to become democratic on their
own. Through long years of neglect, democratic processes have
become fragile. The coteries, individuals and families
controlling parties are so firmly entrenched, that there is no
realistic hope of members being allowed to organize themselves
and challenge the leadership and procedures. It will be somewhat
na´ve to except the party leaders themselves initiating the
process of party reform, which will undermine their own
unaccountable, and often illegitimate personal power. Nor is
there hope that democratic elections for public offices will
automatically force reform on parties. As the choices offered to
the public are between Tweedledom and Tweedledee, no matter which
party wins, the picture remains unchanged and immutable.

We as a people have an abiding and legitimate interest in the
affairs of parties. As we have seen, parties are by no means
private clubs looking after their personal interest. They are the
engines of democracy and instruments of governance in society.
They seek and acquire power over us, and in reality have
effective, and unbreakable monopoly over power. The power of the
party cartels cannot be checked by forming new parties.
Experience everywhere shows that the hope of new parties emerging
and spawning a new culture rejuvenating the political process is
a pipe dream. The emergence of a successful new political party
itself is a rare phenomenon in modern world. The emergence Telugu
Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh was one such rare example. A
combination of unusual circumstances - a strong-willed, extremely
popular leader who became an idol to millions as a successful
film star, absence of a viable political alternative to the
dominant ruling party, people's disgust with misgovernance and
corruption, and a strong anti-establishment sentiment have
brought about a major political change in 1983 in Andhra Pradesh.
However, as events have shown, the same new party has become a
replica of Congress, and has conformed to the iron law of Indian
politics - 'all mainstream, centrist parties imitate Congress and
become its clones'. This fate is seen in varying degrees in many
parties. The Janata of 1977, which took birth from the anger of
people, and its various progeny; BJP, which claimed indigenous
cultural roots and promised a brave new world, and yet lost is
sheen in office within a few months; the regional parties like
the two Dravidian parties, whose origin was based on cultural
regionalism; the Shiv Sena, which rose out of urban middle class
frustration; the many other religious, tribal, caste, and
regional ethnic parties with bases all over India _ all these
have proved to be no different from Congress in organizational
ethos and internal functioning. Of the three truly ideology-driven
parties, Swatantra party and Socialists disappeared, and
Communists continue their policy of splendid isolation and
democratic centralism, unmindful of the tectonic shifts in global
and Indian politics.

From this bird's eye view of Indian political parties, it is
clear that we, as a people, have stakes in their functioning and
future. The moment they seek power over us, and control over
state apparatus, they forfeit their claim to immunity from public
scrutiny and state regulation based on reasonable restraints.
This is particularly true in a climate in which they have proved
to be utterly irresponsible, unaccountable and autocratic,
perpetuating individual control over levers of power and
political organization, entirely for personal aggrandizement,
pelf and privilege. Therefore, in a deep sense, the crisis in
political parties is a national crisis, and has to be resolved by
a national effort. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion
that there should be internal democracy in parties, regulated by
law, and monitored and supervised by statutory authorities. Every
party, by law, should be obligated to practice internal democracy
in all respects. The details of functioning can be left to the
party's own constitution, but it should conform to the broad
principles of democracy stated clearly in law. The actual
practice of internal democracy should be verifiable by an
external agency, say the Election Commission. Mandatory
publication of membership rolls of political parties at local
level, election of leadership at every level by secret ballot
supervised by the Election Commission, a comprehensive
prohibition on nominations of office bearers or expulsion of
rivals, a well-established system to challenge the leadership of
incumbents at every level, and justiciability of these internal
democratic processes through special tribunals - all these
measures could form the basis of any meaningful reform and
regulation of political parties. Extreme care and caution should,
however, be exercised to ensure that a party's democratic choices
of leadership or its espousal of policies are not in any way
directly or indirectly influenced by law or external monitoring
agencies. The party leaders and its policies should be judged
only by the public, in the market place of ideas and in elections.

As a net result of these distortions, elections have lost their
real meaning as far as the people are concerned. It is often
tempting to blame the illiterate and poor citizens for this
plight of our democracy. But in reality it is the democratic
vigor and enthusiastic participation of the countless poor and
illiterate voters, which has sustained our democracy so far.
However, most people have realized with experience that the
outcome of elections is of little consequence to their lives in
the long run. If, by a miracle, all winners in an election lose,
and all their immediate rivals are elected instead, there will
still be no real improvement in the quality of governance. This
stark realization compels people to make rational shot-term
choices and often succumb to the pulls and pressures of money,
liquor, caste, religion, group or other sectarian loyalties, when
not motivated by anger and rejection.

People also have come to realize that their vote has no sanctity
after the election. Even if a candidate gets elected on a
platform, there is no guarantee that their representative will
not defect to a party with an entirely different agenda and
ideology and betray the people's verdict purely for personal gain.
Public office is seen as private property and in handling it the
trust reposed by voters is of little consequence. Personal honour
and commitment to a cause are at a premium in a system which
rewards defections and does little to penalize political
malfeasance.

Obviously, this situation calls for urgent and practical
electoral reforms along with fundamental governance reforms to
enhance people's empowerment and participation. These electoral
reforms should address the following concerns: